REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

and CORAZON NAGUIT, respondents

REPUBLIC VS. CA AND NAGUIT

FACTS:

Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which seeks judicial
confirmation of her imperfect title over a parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. It was
alleged that Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest have occupied the land
openly and in the concept of owner without any objection from any private
person or even the government until she filed her application for registration. The
MCTC rendered a decision confirming the title in the name of Naguit upon
failure of Rustico Angeles to appear during trial after filing his formal opposition
to the petition. The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines,
filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the property which is in
open, continuous and exclusive possession must first be alienable. Naguit could
not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since the subject land was
declared as alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. The alienable
and disposable character of the land should have already been established
since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the Property

Registration Decree that the subject land be first classified as alienable and
disposable before the applicantâs possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership could even start.

RULING: Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be registered
as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration
of title is filed. There are three requirements for registration of title, (1) that the
subject property is alienable and disposable; (2) that the applicants and their
predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession
and occupation, and; (3) that the possession is under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945. There must be a positive act of the government
through a statute or proclamation stating the intention of the State to abdicate
its exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring the land as alienable
and disposable. However, if there has been none, it is presumed that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the property and the possession of
the land no matter how long would not ripen into ownership through acquisitive
prescription. To follow the Solicitor Generalâs argument in the construction of
Section 14 (1) would render the paragraph 1 of the said provision inoperative for
it would mean that all lands of public domain which were not declared as
alienable and disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to
original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the
occupant. In effect, it precludes the government from enforcing the said
provision as it decides to reclassify lands as alienable and disposable. The land in
question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been planted with coconut
trees now over fifty years old. The inherent nature of the land but confirms its
certification in 1980 as alienable, hence agricultural. There is no impediment to
the application of Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had
the right to apply for registration owing to the continuous possession by her and
her predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945.